A DVD REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK III - COLLECTOR'S EDITION (Universal)

[Lexmark3200]

I personally don't think it is worth buying a dvd JUST for the sound or visuals to impress firends to show them some pyrotechnic the sub is capable of...but that;sjust me. I was guilty of that with cd when i was young.

Surely there are some tryuly good movies that have impressive sound effects and visuals to show off but also be a good movie?? Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (the latter would certainly be musically exceptional) as it's William's most adult score).

Well, I gotta tell ya, there are alot of people guilty of buying bad cinema for the picture and sound quality on DVD --- me included, which I did with PEARL HARBOR. For the most part, its NOT worth buying the discs if the films arent good, but I get suckered into this sometimes. But, you must also understand, in the OBSESSIVE world of home theater, where I have been a witness to, believe me, some people will show a film to family members or friends just to blow them through the back wall because of the sound effects on the disc --- BUT, for the most part, people sit down in a home theater to ENJOY a GOOD motion picture, not a HORRIBLE one.

And sure, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a fabulous film as well as exhibits a world-class DTS track, hands down. One of the best on the market, in fact.

[Lexmark3200]

"despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog"

I actually thought the dialogue between Jeff Goldblum and his sarcastic mathematician character in the first film and everyone else in the cast was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the dialogue that plagued the sequels.....I mean, William H. Macy and Tea Leoni were just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG for a Jurassic Park sequel; Sam Neil remaining onboard was fine.

[GMichael]

Hi RGA,

I guess that everyone has different tastes. I enjoyed JP 1 & 3 very much. 2 not so much. Maybe for the same reasons as Lex. I loved the base and dino looked better than ever. Number 3 was full of action. 1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon. But some people are more into the talking part of a movie. You know, plot, story line, making me think. Not my style. I do too much thinking all day at work as it is.

As far as buying a DVD for the sound? I find myself watching some TV shows because I am amazed at the sound. Things I used to switch off in a NY second end up being on for an hour or more now that I have a surround system.

But it's nice to be able to desagree, without some of the arguing I see others do on some threads.

Have a great night.

[Lexmark3200]

"1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon"

Absolutely agreed. The first Jurassic Park --- and I just watched the beginning for a few minutes again ---- is simply a Spielberg Classic, in MY opinion, worthy of Jaws notiriety. That is the FIRST one we're talking about --- not the sequels. The scene where the jeeps pull up and Dern and Neil first see the dinosaurs walking around, eating from the trees, and then their MASSIVE foostep that resonates with TONS of LFE when they stomp down from the tree....man.....this scene ALWAYS gives me goosebumps, especially after the John Hammond character says:

"Doctor Grant.....my dear Doctor Sadler.......welcome to Jurassic Park......"

[RGA]

I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever.

My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful.

But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly.

This film in some respects would have been better served with taking the following tracks:

take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear. Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films.

I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...306110302/1023

[Lexmark3200]

"I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever."

Well, people DO consider this first one a cinematic achievement AND a classic, and in MY own opinion, this was just as good an effort as his Jaws; you may not agree, but some, like me, who actually STUDIED film at New York's Adelphi University, believe it to legendary for what it was trying to do.....like I keep saying, all it takes is that shot when they arrive on Islar Nubar and the jeeps stop and we see the Brontos eating out of the trees ---- I remember the "wow" factor sweeping across the audience in the theater when this scene transcended.....it was spine tingling. I dont think it was Sir Steven's BEST film, by far, but it is one of his most looked-upon cinematic achievements in terms of his career I believe; to compare this concept to the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wouldnt even be fair.

"My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful."

It was intending to suggest that fooling with mother nature and bringing back a species that were selected by nature for extinction SHOULDNT have been even attempted because like Goldblum's character says "Nature finds a way"........the novel version by Michael Chriton, which I have read several times, is BRILLIANT but I dont think Amblin Entertainment left out too much of his novel-to-screen adaptation; Hammond WANTED Jurassic Park to be a theme park, yes, but the point of the film is that they somehow ENGINEERED DINOSAURS from prehistoric DNA caught in the fosilized amber and mosquitoes that bit dinosaurs; this is a fascinating concept enough and is what continuously holds my attention every time that disc spins in my player. Did you know that after Jurassic Park debuted, there were news reports claiming that the technology depicted in the film actually EXISTS on a certain level --- that scientists CAN tap into DNA material perhaps that old?

"But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly."

To rip apart a motion picture frame by frame is the easiest thing in the world to do --- I can do this to COUNTLESS utter COUNTLESS titles that have been released. Sure, Jaws seemed to be a more serious approach by Sir Steven, but that doesnt mean that Jurassic Park DIDNT succeed on what it was supposed to do --- convince people that science could somehow (perhaps not in real life, if those news reports werent true, but according to Chriton's screenplay assistance) engineer artificially life from a totally different point in time. Imagine man and dinosaur coming face to face after DECADES of separating forces involved in the evolution process; this is what made the first "Park" so thought provoking. I think he DID in fact build a world where we didnt even HAVE to suspend our disbelief --- I WAS believing that T Rex was really eating those tires on the upside down truck like Entemman's donuts when I watched the film ---- to me, its suspending disbelief a bit, because we KNOW we are watching ILM in action, BUT, can you imagine really being there in that situation? A real life T Rex staring you down and trying to outrun it? I think he did a brilliant job in the thrills and chills department.

"take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear."

Didnt he do this? We dont see the T Rex until when?

"Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films."

Agreed about the next two films, which WERE bombs (save for that DTS track on Part III --- wow) but the kid talk you speak of had a point; Alan Grant didnt like kids, and so kids were shoved in his face as a backdrop to the story; I think this film WAS scary WITH real tension. And sure there are believable characters; so much more so than the OTHER two Park sequels, thats for sure; you didnt think the Hammond character was believable? You didnt think the conversations between Goldblum and the Hammond character were memorable? Ian Malcom: "Yeah, John, your scientists were so excited that they could, they forgot to think if they should....." and when he says, quite coyly, "All Im saying is......nature finds a way....."

"I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money"

I dont know; people make him the be-all end-all of cinema reviewers when much of the time, his opinions on most forms of cinema, in MY opinion and in many opinions of people I graduated film school with, are completely off the wall in certain regards. I dont put much stock in his views; its just a view, like anyone else's.

[RGA]

First Ebert is the only film reviewer to win the Pulitzer -- he teaches film school not just studies at a film school. I don't think there is a film critic out there that knows film any better -- that does not mean I will agree with him everytime but he usually makes a good case for his opinion.

Until coming here I have never met anyone that considers JP a classic. A wonderful technical achievement yes, incredibly realistic dynosaurs yes -- but a "classic." It depends on how one views the term classic. The grand idea of tampering with mother nature is not new, and it certainly wasn't Spielberg who thought it up...and they never really get into this theme SERIOUSLY, a few little one line warnings from Goldblum is hardly deep.

This is a paper thin story with largely idiotic and/or one dimensional characters thrown into a great special effects monster movie. It's not considered by most critics to be a GREAT film let alone a classic. Spielberg's other films to entertain kids and adults, Jaws, E.T., Raiders, are far superior films for the simple reason that they are not so incredibly stupid. JP is precisely why a loyt of snob critics don;t take Spielberg seriously. Luckily for him that Schindler's List is his great equalizer which will stand with any other film in history in virtually any film category. It won 7 academy awards and IMO it got robbed of 4 others and robbed of two other nominations that it should have received and didn't get.

I think Classic is a personal choice anyway -- if JP is a classic to you and you like it better than Jaws that's fine by me...but that is hardly the case for everyone and I'm betting most people. Indeed, many people only feel a film like Jaws is a classic because it set the summer blockbuster standard and changed the future of the film industry for better or worse...and then there's the whole group of Spielberg-haters who seek out anything they can to criticise him.

JP is a good movie -- but it's ONLY a good movie because of the visual special effects. Remove the impressive visuals and you are left with a mess.